As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism Peter W. Miller

LOL. Yes, in fact I was in the process of editing by adding thishttp://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38492.msg614616.html#msg614616where you mentioned it in the private section. I still can't get my finger on your distinction, as you don't seem to be expousing sedevantism, and your supreme pontiff Pius IX was as conservative as your present (and I do believe you claim him. Correct me if I am wrong on that) supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".

LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you. The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon. You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.

unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".

LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you. The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.

That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.

I don't even talk more about the Vatican here than the Church, let alone in real life.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".

LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you. The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.

That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.

He didn't say that he doesn't spend much time talking about; he just said he doesn't spend much time thinking about us. Draw your own conclusions.

Not much thought is involved in pegging the Vatican.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon. You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.

Given the nature of this forum, it would be pretty pointless for me to try to defend myself. I am optimistic, however, that there's a sizable minority of Orthodox posters who are open-minded enough to see what's going on around here.

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon. You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.

Given the nature of this forum, I would be pretty pointless for me to try to defend myself. I am optimistic, however, that there's a sizable minority of Orthodox posters who are open-minded enough to see what's going on around here.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about. After weeks and weeks, you show up announcing that traditional Catholics have bad deal on OC.net.

I don't know what traditional Catholic means to you? I don't understand the labels that are used in Catholic circles. I think most of the label makers are not particularly good Catholics at a number of levels...so I never have paid much attention to them.

Then you jump all over J Michael so when I told you what I thought I used the label that you gave yourself...I don't care what you are or call yourself. But IF you call yourself something, don't get all bent out of shape if people hold you to it.

Perhaps there are Orthodox who are vitally interested in internal issues in the Catholic church, like the battle between traditionalists and neo-conservatives, but I don't personally know any. I don't know anyone who cares about those arguments at all. Insofar as Orthodox are interested in Roman Catholics at all, it is over entirely different issues. Like the way the Roman Catholic church goes into countries where it has never had more than a token presence and then proceeds to act like it speaks for all Christians, because it is the "one true faith." That would get most Orthodox going pretty well.

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be. Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do. That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**. That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!

The moderation team, after much deliberation on this subject, has come to the agreement that as a board we would request that ANY and ALL posters NOT publish Private Message material, unless they ask for the other person's consent to publish said material in a public manner.

We would also like to point out that in the Message system there is an "ignore" button/feature which works very well to mitigate getting messages from unwanted posters. This is always an option, for everyone.